-----Original Message-----
From: Nat Papovich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 8:58 PM
To: Matt Liotta
Subject: RE: Next step
Matt -
Now there's a sound statement - pure Fusebox doesn't fundamentally
address scaling at an enterprise level. And maybe that's something we
can improve on by standardizing and publishing the scaling techniques
that successful Fusebox applications have used thus far.
However, in an attempt to accomodate the majority of developers
(developers who would feel uncomfortable trying to duplicate the
effectiveness of Fusebox in their own architectures), members of the
Fusebox community who contribute to the spec have always tried to keep
Fusebox applicable to that majority. Highly-scalable websites and
applications are something that a very small minority of ColdFusion
developers are involved in. Why should we tell those smarties how to
architect thier sites? I think it would be hard to convince any
architect planning a highly scalable site to adopt any architecture
other than something they already have experience with, and for good
reason. Fusebox is one proven, scalable architecture.
Other than home-grown architectures, what are other published, mature
architectures better suited for scalability than Fusebox? I think it
would be hard to beat Fusebox for *extensibility*, which is one of its
greatest strengths - independence of modules.
NAT
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 7:24 PM
To: Nat Papovich
Subject: RE: Next step
I am quite aware of AutoByTel.com. I spoke with Doug Nottage at the
CF_Scale conference which we were both speakers at. At that time
AutoByTel.com was only running 4 CF servers for their e-commerce site.
They also had an additional 4 servers for their dealer extranet. The
number 5000+ connections per second is a little bit of marketing. Their
is no way their 4 CF servers could handle that kind of load. However, if
you count the connections made to the e-commerce site, the dealer
extranet, and their image servers than you may well be able to account
for that number.
On the issue of Fusebox and custom tags, I understand that they are not
required. However, it has been my experience that they are often used
and continue to be encouraged by Fusebox advocates.
Please understand my intent is not to attack Fusebox for what it is. I
think Fusebox has a place in the CF community, but I don't think that
place is in scalable and extensible applications. While it is possible
to scale Fusebox applications that don't use custom tags to a certain
extent, other architectures are more suited for the job and tend to
scale better. This is because they are built to take into account
important things like partial page caching and organizational
optimizations.
-Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Nat Papovich [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 5:41 PM
To: Matt Liotta
Subject: RE: Next step
Matt -
I'm not aware of any custom tags that are required for Fusebox to work.
Some Fuseboxers might say that formurl2attributes.cfm is required, but
many do not use it (I, for one, have built complete Fusebox applications
without it). Bodycontent.cfm is another popular custom tag used by
Fusebox developers, but it is not required and MM/Allaire created
cfsavecontent based on the same functionality, which I assume can scale.
As far as I know, there are no other custom tags that are recommended
(much less required) for use in Fusebox-specific applications.
In case you didn't know, autobytel.com has many servers (I could be
wrong, but I think it's in the neighborhood of 25) handling millions of
hits per day. They handled 5000+ connections per second after the
beforementioned Super Bowl advertisement. Check out Doug's site at
http://doug.nottage.com/cf/index.cfm?id=32 for more information.
I'm not trying to attack you for your opinions. I just want to make sure
you get your rap straight to lend more credibility to your arguments.
I'm always interested in hearing people's gripes about Fusebox.
NAT
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Liotta [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 5:15 PM
To: Nat Papovich
Subject: RE: Next step
>Which custom tags are you referring to?
Well all of them. Anytime you make use of custom tags in every request
you are doomed to scalability problems. Custom tags do not scale.
Numbers like 1900% growth are not impressive when it comes to
scalability. How much traffic did they start with? For example I have a
web site that generally gets very little traffic, something like 10 hits
a day. The other day I sent the URL out to a mailing list and it got
10000 hits that day. That is a 1000% increase in traffic. Does this mean
my site is scalable?
-Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Nat Papovich [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 3:11 PM
To: Matt Liotta
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Next step
Matt -
Which custom tags are you referring to?
In regards to Fusebox sites that scale, autobytel.com had 1900% growth
within one hour of a Super Bowl commercial spot. I think that's called
"scaling". There's another Fusebox site at ebags.com which is the
largest bag retailer on the web.
NAT
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Liotta [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 12:38 PM
To: CF_OpenSource
Subject: RE: Next step
Fusebox itself offers very little other than consistency. The problem
with Fusebox and almost every other CF methodology is that it relies on
custom tags which don't scale.
-Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Brownlee [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 12:33 PM
To: CF_OpenSource
Subject: RE: Next step
Hey, just my opinion my man. No war intended.
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick McElhaney [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 3:28 PM
To: CF_OpenSource
Subject: RE: Next step
> - If you insist on using Fusebox, good luck and I'll work with you. I
> strongly suggest that you don't. Fusebox is fine for web site
> development. This isn't a web site. It's an application.
That's funny. Not trying to start another war, but I've often said
exactly the opposite about fusebox. It's good for applications, but not
ordinary web sites. :)
Patrick
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
